The demise of the Sea Harrier

Tiger wrote:

Henry J Cobb wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...28/ixhome.html
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "With the demise of the
Sea Harrier, the Royal Navy will be left with a capability gap. But we
believe that that is an acceptable risk."

-HJC

So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.

Guy

Guy- So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
BRBR

When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at sea
control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based A/C...in
terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got beat
up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do the
complete job.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
system.

Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.


"Pechs1" wrote in message
...
Guy- So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
BRBR

When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at
sea
control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
A/C...in
terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got
beat
up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do
the
complete job.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Frijoles wrote:
Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
system.

Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.

Aren't the Super Hornets supposed to be the tankers for the JSFs? ;-)

-HJC

On 4/23/04 13:04, in article
et, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
system.

Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.



Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
models which can carry more payload and will be more capable. Better to
scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead--especially now that the
airframe is 2500-3000 lbs overweight.

--Woody

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...
Guy- So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
BRBR

When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at
sea
control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
A/C...in
terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got
beat
up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do
the
complete job.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

icepack- Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F
Hornet - BRBR

Yep, but not better than the CV based JSF...

The conventional CVs will not have a pack of STOVL JSFs onboard.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1 wrote:

Like the
aluminum surface ships that got beat up in the Falklands, it looks
good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do the complete job.

Pechs, I'd have thought you'd been around long enough to know better.
Please name one ship lost in the Falklands due to aluminum construction.

Can't be done, because there are none. The Type 42s (Sheffield, Coventry)
had steel construction. The Type 21s (Ardent, et al) had aluminum
superstructures but were lost to catastrophic damage -- 500- and 1000-lb
bombs detonating well inside the ship don't care much about construction
materials.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

It is of note that the weather conditions during the Falklands war were such
that it was (on occasions) outside the operating limits of launch/recovery
of fast jets on conventional CV's (re the previous 54,000 ton Ark Royal).
At no time did the Hermes and Invincible stop Sea Harrier ops.

David Nicholls
RN rtd.

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...
Guy- So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
BRBR

When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at
sea
control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
A/C...in
terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got
beat
up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do
the
complete job.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Ref: Aluminum construction - I should think that the incident with the
Belknap would have put the kibosh on aluminum construction. After the
collision they could have rebuilt it with a flight deck - the AL
superstructure was damn near zeroed.
Walt BJ

David Nicholls wrote:

It is of note that the weather conditions during the Falklands war were such
that it was (on occasions) outside the operating limits of launch/recovery
of fast jets on conventional CV's (re the previous 54,000 ton Ark Royal).
At no time did the Hermes and Invincible stop Sea Harrier ops.

Well, they did on several occasions and had much reduced ops for a few days at a
time in at least two periods, but it was typically due to fog. If they
couldn't see to fly, the Argentine pilots couldn't see to attack.

Guy